Does Time Exist?

Does Time Exist?

In today’s article I’m asking; does time exist? Is time merely an idea, an apparent function of relative experience, an arbitrary measurement of an illusory thing? Does time exist only in our minds, or is it something real, that we should spend carefully?

OK, that’s several questions, but you get the picture…

Some scientists such as quantum gravitational expert Carlo Rovelli and physicist Julian Barbour seem to believe that time is not real and should be removed from the equations of physics so that we can move forward with a unified theory.

Maybe they are correct.

Time is sold to us as a precious commodity, something real and tangible. Society has taught us the idea that we live along some invisible line from birth to death and that it holds some invaluable currency that we must spend wisely.

I think it’s a dumb idea and it doesn’t fit for me. It’s like a square peg round hole kind of thing. For me, it’s merely a concept, one that has been afforded far too much relevance in modern life.

Time seems more like a tool to me, one that we should use to get things done in the relative world and be willing to put back on the shelf when we’re finished with it.

Like a ruler or other measuring device, the clock and calendar are tools to gauge our position relative to other things and each other.

Time can be helpful, allowing us to arrange our affairs, plan meetings, go on holiday, celebrate events like birthdays and such, but we’ve become slaves to it.

We see the effects of something we have labelled “time” and state with assurance that it’s real. However, I’ve explored this at length, and I’m in no doubt about its unreality.

Mind you; there are times when I forget, like when I get up late, and I’m firing the kids out the door to school. But when things quieten down, it becomes apparent.

If time is precious and valuable, then it looks like most of us are in trouble, because we seem to spend it like we have no regard for it whatsoever.

According to Science

Quantum Theory and non-locality goes something like this (in simple terms); Take two particles, A and B (photons or electrons for example). Pair them, then separate them, and put them on either side of the planet. Stimulate particle A, and particle B will react without any perceivable time delay.

In other words, both particles act at the same moment in time regardless of distance. A remarkable discovery, right? How can this be? We need to have a physical connection; we need to observe some interconnecting frequency waveform or something! It also means we’ve got an interaction between particles happening way beyond the speed of light

Well, not really.

Quantum studies are showing us, at the fundamental level, that our concept of time as we think of it of as a linear passage of events is wide of the mark, and in fact, there is no mark.

All points of reference are arbitrary; they are conveniences, they are non-existent in fundamental reality.

What’s happening when we denote a point in space is we are collapsing a fluctuating field of vibration into solid form.

Renormalisation: Another Convenience

Take any point of reference in the universe, it can be a particle of matter or whatever, it doesn’t much matter (lol). The further you zoom in on the point the fuzzier it gets, the less defined it becomes and the less it seems to make sense, at least from a physical standpoint.

Science has a big problem with this. In its inability to define things absolutely, it comes up with another convenience to explain the indefiniteness of things.

Enter; Renormalisation. Renormalisation is science’s way of solving mathematical problems which occur when we try to define the universe. It’s a rounding up and down of the figures.

This inability to define things ultimately is not only observable at a quantum level, but also we can see this in everyday life too.

Let’s talk about the room you’re in, the floor, the carpet, the walls, the paint, the ceiling, the things in the room, how they look, where they came from etc.

We can talk about them forever, until the day we die. There is no end to the level to which we can delve into detail about a particular subject. On and on it goes.

Everything Is Consciousness

It’s the same reason why world records are continually broken, and why ultramarathon runners can keep running further and further, and why scientists keep finding smaller and smaller and bigger and bigger stuff.

The reality is there are no points that exist in the universe; therefore there is no time. Time only becomes viable when we perceive there to be points of reference, and a distance travelled (by the observer) between those points of reference.

Time becomes especially real when we perceive these points of reference to be life events. All things are of a fundamentally psychic nature. Physical things are merely the collapse of psychic things into physical reality.

We’ve got this nervous system that perceives vibrational things as reality, and in using it, we become part of the scene, part of the experiment, part of the dance.

We can never indeed be separated from it, and that’s because we are it, a consciousness that is. Everything is consciousness either psychic or that same psychic stuff objectified.

In other words; it’s the collapse of the field to what we call matter.

See more on the now famous Double Slit Experiment for an explanation of the seemingly contradictory behaviour of light as waveform and particle.

Well, I Remember Yesterday So Explain That!

Some would like to think that time is real and they’d say “well, I remember yesterday, and that was before, and here I am now, so there, that’s time that has passed”.

Let me explain what that is…

There is only now. We experience everything now, not in the past, and not in the so-called future, only now. If you can get with that, then you will understand. Yesterday is a memory of previous experiences, and our experiences don’t exist in a linear pattern, there is no line, no points. Remember the earlier paragraphs?

Some would say “well if there were no such thing as time then we would not die, there would be no decay, everyone would live forever”. This is another misunderstanding. What there are, are cycles of energy, not a single or multiple passages of linear time.

How it is that we perceive as we do, is because our consciousness is a single point of attention, a singularity you might say, and we are watching the movement of the energy through that single point of perception.

It is by our perception only that things appear to be, and not to be, to live and die. In fundamental reality, there is merely everything existent in a single moment, no movement.

Movement only becomes apparent when consciousness decides to fix itself in what we call reality. It’s a dimension of reality called physical reality, and it is our playground.

The following gif is a fair representation of what you are.

The singularity in spacetime

The Singularity

All there is is now. Everything exists in an ever-present moment from which everything in the perceivable universe comes forth from. Things only seem to be separate by virtue of our relative experience.

It is accurate to say the point of creation is our point of focus, otherwise known in astronomical terms, as the Singularity.

The Singularity is the point which all things we experience rise from, and eventually fall back into. I believe it is where consciousness itself dwells in a state of readiness.

What you see in the above simulation is a black hole/white hole pattern of the universe. When we try to define the singularity, the centre of the torus, we find we can not.

What is created passes through its cycle and then falls back into nothing, available again to become whatever it wants.

It is impossible to define the singularity in ultimate terms. Nassim Haramein has found that the centre of the torus is infinitely dense, or in other words, it contains the entire universe.

Fundamental reality has an infinite number of answers or possibilities, it has any number of possible outcomes. When the future comes about it does so now and is directly related to how we focus our minds.

The future does not exist until we create it. We are the factor, the parameter that decides the outcome whether our conscious waking mind realises it or not.

We can not isolate ourselves from the universe, we form part of the equation, always.

Mechanics Or Ecology?

The word “Mechanics” used in the term “Quantum Mechanics” indicates a machine like predictable, buildable, knowable thing. The Quantum Universe in which we live, whether we want to accept it is that or not, may seem on the surface to be mechanical and linear but it is not.

It is probably better to describe the Universe as an infinite number of spherically shaped universes one contained within the next. The Universe is better described as a self-replicating fractal system.

If we must give this still mystical system a name let’s call it “Quantum Ecology” rather than “Quantum Mechanics” because it is built from within its self.

Everything comes out of the invisible, just the same way as you, me and every other living organism does.

Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. – Niels Bohr

The Shortfall of Scientific Understanding

The current predominant world paradigm that exists says that if a thing can not be explained, detailed, analysed and documented by linear scientific thought processes then it’s mumbo-jumbo. If you have a spiritual explanation for human existence then you’re crazy, you’re in dreamland.

The traditional scientific mindset says everything in the universe must be capable of explanation either now or at some point in the future by scientific analytic methods alone.

Except for the most advanced scientific thinkers such as Nassim Haramein, common thinking suggests that in the absence of scientific proof it’s not worth the time discussing. If it can not be put in a box with a label then we’re not interested.

The game I play is an interesting one, it’s imagination in a tight straitjacket – Richard Feynman; Theoretical Physicist

To me, although the current system of measurement and verification is actually moving in the right direction, it has a large portion missing.

Quantum particle behaviour cannot be explained in terms of science alone. That is to say, it can not be explained in terms of the waking mind because the waking mind by its nature functions on the basis that our reality is physical.

Our reality consists of things that cannot be broken down into individual bits. It cannot be explained in a linear mechanical fashion, so at some point, we will need to bridge the gap.

World & Personal Challenges

The concept of time is akin to the old world idea that the earth is flat, and we seem completely ruled by it. To expect to solve world issues by means of this linear thought is shortsighted at best. It merely reproduces the same problems over and over again.

Scientific research is the accepted modern leader of thought in the world, and that’s a good thing. However, it needs to adopt a wider and deeper acceptance of the link between mind and matter. That is if it is to influence significant change towards a better world.

I recognise that science is incredibly valuable to us. It has provided the basis for all the technological advances in the world. But is this how we are to measure success as human beings on this planet?

I don’t think so.

At a micro level, at the level you and I function at, we need to stop putting off living. Stop racing around trying to get ahead, chasing our own tails.

The things we make important are really not. We spend the best years of our lives slaves to the clock, to employers to organisations and institutions.

In so doing we sacrifice our relationships, then rationalise our behaviour by telling ourselves we have no choice.

This western world behaviour is ultimately self-destructive and serves no one. We teach our kids to do the same thing and so on and on it goes.

Someday, we’ll need to stop the clock.

Some Further Reading

Related

Author | Larry G. Maguire

I'm Larry G. Maguire, writer from Dublin, and author of The Artist's Manifesto; a creative philosophy for life and work. I write and record new material on its core principle, Purposeful Accident on a weekly basis. The book says; forget about success. Instead, focus on the work for its own sake and let the results surprise you. Learn how and reshape your thinking with the weekly Sunday Letters.

Reader Interactions

Comments

Problem with this is that if you infinitely abstract as the author has done here, then at best you end up with a null argument. It’s a bit like people trying to prove we live in virtual reality – anything they observe that appears to confirm this could have been a construct of the ‘system’ they believe they’re operating in. Likewise, assumptions about the non-existence of matter are derived from an assumption that ‘something’ however is indeed there, and matter / physical elements of some sort are enough to support that.
I would suggest that human beings hurrying to get to work on time, remembering events in their past, planning for the future, etc, is good enough to give us the word ‘time’ as a descriptor of that. Ironically it seems the author has a ‘particulate’ approach to time, as if it’s something he should be able to hold and play about with; if he can’t find a particle that explains time, QED it doesn’t exist (which is not correct).
I think this comes down to a lot of quantum mysticism that’s out there – this vague notion that there’s not really anything there, but no convincing proposal of any alternative.
But, yet, every day we see people cross the road with care because they don’t want to end up getting squished. People who eat too much get fat. Planes drop out the sky. People die. People appear to get upset / happy by what they perceive as a physical reality. All that is much more plausible than a nothing really exists proposition. Surely you have your work cut out trying to explain there’s nothing really there when there certainly appears to be something…

I think within this framework of what we call reality we have some degree of conscious choice over decisions. However, most of our choice making is unconscious, below the surface, coming about by virtue of momentum of automatic thought. We are by and large conditioned beings it seems. It seems the more aware we become of our habitual automatic thinking then the more conscious choice we have access to.

Great article. I like how you explain how time really isn’t linear. Sure, it’s useful to pretend it is so that we’re all on the same page, but it really can be morphed and distorted in very many scenarios. Everything is spherical

As the wonderful Arthur O’Shaughnessy says, “we are the music-makers, and we are the dreamers of the dreams’. You mentioned that there are no two absolute points in time. I totally agree with that. When it comes to time, I feel it doesn’t exist outside of us, but like everything else we think we ‘know’, it exists within the person giving it meaning.

We can ‘name’ two points and thus proclaim that within those two set points that time occured. I see it like the argument of whether or not a chair with four legs exists when nobody is there to observe it. What is a ‘leg’ of a chair unless we agreed with whoever or whatever taught us that the wooden pieces that support the chair is called a ‘leg’. What is the number 4 unless we accepted the ‘knowledge’ passed down to us that such a thing exists. If a person was never taught what a chair was, what wood was, what a leg was. . . .what would they observe when they saw that wooden chair? Similarly, what would a person observe in a world where they were not taught the concept of time? It reminds me of how in other countries, the idea of 15 minutes might feel like an hour to some and 5 min to someone else. As a dreamer of the dream, we all are merely creating the ‘music’ of time – it’s just that some people don’t realize that they are creating it. They think it exists outside of them.

Hi Dalia, thanks for reading. Yes, the concept of time differs between cultures. The Aboriginal people for example, even though their children have the same cognitive capacities as western children (white), they appear to have a difficulty associating clock time with the passage of the day. This is despite understanding the concept of how the clock works. I suppose it’s due to neural pathways in the brain not being established for this process but I’d have to research further.

This whole world is a psychic construct that differs from person to person. We think we live in a single place called earth, but the truth is that there is a slightly different earth for every person “on” it. I don’t believe the universe exists objectively, we simply share a general understanding that it does.

I completely agree. I like to do a zen practice in my home with others called “circling” where our entire purpose is to try to see the world in the moment through the eyes of the person we are ‘circling’ . So many of my assumptions about how another person would react or their motivations have been totally challenged just by this practice alone. Yet, I know that no matter what, I will always be limited by my individual perspective and understanding. The world and our reality really is completely different to every single one of our individual egos 🙂

interesting discussion. I have never really believed in the big bang and the beginning of time even at school I thought it was all too convenient. At one point there was nothing and at the next everything came into being. Which went against all the rules we were taught like you cant get something from nothing. I have often thought, there is no beginning and no end and for the universe to exist it must have something to see it, i.e a conscious mind and that the universe only really exists within that conscious mind.
So that life viewing it, is what brings the universe into existence and that time only really exists in our head as a passage of thoughts.
One thing I think science shy’s away from and dismisses it to often as spiritual mumbo jumbo is collective and individual energy. and yet as electrical beings we do produce frequencies and energy fields. Which will intertwine with each other. You only have to hear certain sayings that people say that we never really think about such as “you can feel the energy between them” “you can feel his presence when he walks into the room” “she lights up the room” indeed I often wonder how certain teachers say, had that certain way of making you listen when they shout or make you feel like a naughty school boy when others couldn’t using the same words and I think it comes down to focussing energy on you.
So if time did only exist in our own minds, then are the multitude of different universes you mention each of our own minds? i.e if you were able to travel back, would the time that you travelled back to, be from your memory. In which case would two people who experienced the same thing together see the same thing or would it be from seen from what their memory remembers of it? So effectively you are travelling back to one universe in the way you saw it and someone else is going to another in the way they saw it.
Again if time only exists in our mind are we actually travelling back in time when we recall a memory? We recall it, we experience feelings from it so are we actually living it? We already say we are reliving it. Some people say for instance who have experienced traumatic experiences. Change that memory so are they changing time? Because certainly changing that memory of the experience will change their present and will also change their future.
Again other evidence that we would not go back to the same past, is that it is already being shown that we possibly do not all see the same world through our eyes. There are African tribes that cannot see blue as they do not have a word for it, so therefore they only see a different shade of green. So going back in time they would see a different past to someone else. Would we also be able to go back further than our own memories as if we are energy in a collapsible form are we able to go back further than when our individual energy was created?
I believe if we understood our energies and how they interact more we could also predict our future with more clarity. But at present whilst some people are able to plan their futures better than others I think the collective conscious and interaction of each individual these stop these plans coming to fruition as our energies are diverted or blocked by other people from our goal. I think if you are able to focus and understand you energies and direct them stronger at your vision of the future you will be able to achieve these things much easier.
Therefore again are you travelling forward in time when you create this vision of your future in your head and by understanding how to focus your energy properly actually allowing this future to happen?
I am reading the Silmarillion by tolken at the moment and its interesting as middle earth (or what is actually our earth at the beginning of time) was created from the songs of the Valor heavenly beings that sung the world into existence. Which is similar to what I am talking about.
Is there some sort of higher conscience out there. Not like the gods of religion but an energy that created life to be able to view the workings of it consciences and time is only an illusion of our mind in order to process what we learn and have seen of it, and allows us to add to what has already been learnt and the more we learn of it as a collective and individual basis the more we can travel through this consciousness and the further we can explore it.

Definitely an awesome article. It’s always good to have a reminder that time can be an illusion when we find ourselves wrapped up within its concepts. Almost everything we have programmed ourselves to do is setup to revolve around the common concept of time, so it is very easy to stay completely wrapped up within it (in our now moments). This is a good “pop out of the routine way of thinking” post, there are a lot of good concepts to think about – thank you!

I’ve known this since I was a pre-teen. Time is a ‘yardstick’ and that is all it is. Just like a yard stick, time is used to measure distance with, the added factor of velocity. In and of itself, it has no meaning therfore, no existance.

I am not a scholar but I do think… If light is a photon moving through a quantum foam, whatever that is, creating a wave in front of it then it is being resisted by the quantum foam. Logic would dictate that the light photon would be exponentially slowing down eventually to a stand still. Unless it was being propelled by some external force much like a rocket continuously propels it payload forward. It can be said that the photon behind the one in front of it keeps pushing the one in front of it forward. However when the light source, a flash light being turned off or a star dying, last light photon would have nothing behind it to continue the push forward thus the photons would coast to a stop. Factor in unknowable random forces of gravity on the beams photons it would also become dispersed in a myriad of directions.

As far as time goes I have never thought of it as anything more than an abstract thought by which we can chronologicalize the passing of events.

I’ve been entertaining an idea recently regarding light that I picked up from an article I read regarding the interaction of bodies i.e. the moon and the earth. The idea is that light is inherent in the body and comes about, as far as our sensory mechanism is concerned, by virtue of the interaction between fields of energy. The idea suggests for example that light does not come (travel) from the sun to earth, but is a manifestation of the interaction between the earth and sun’s energy fields. It appears to travel only because of the nature of the relative experience of human beings. I like it and will investigate some more.

To my limited knowledge energy fields are either magnetic (electrically generated) or gravitational; or they are the simply a different manifestation of one in the same.
Your concept connotates that light is not photon particles but rather a result of two separate energy fields interacting with one another??? If that were the case then logic would dictate that light is localized only in areas where these fields interact. Energy fields either attract or repel. For a body to receive light within this train of thought then the field is attracting light and light could not be emitted.

1. You already moving the goal post in relation with your own article, you simply substituted time with ‘relativity’ and light/photon with yet another kind of energy…
2. That also disapprove your own opinion about the nature of time, why, because if in short you describe that time is only a construct that we perceive from our flesh, but that also indirectly suggests that only living being with our level of intelligence can understand it, while in reality less intelligent beings also in reality perceive time as we do; also the matter of fact is, non living things (ex : stuffs we made to observe the universe) can also ‘perceive’ time as it is that we ‘describe’ it.

We are now left with mass, energy and distance – so the parodox of eternity in time are reduced to to the three mentioned concepts. Can we also reduce this to two concepts – mass and energy, by the means of mathematics, so that we were only left with one paradox – what started mass and energy? Luckily we have e=m c^2, but we are still back to square one, although we are starting to get some grip of quantum theory.

Time does not exist – events happen in a sequence, which can not be
reversed. “Time” is not absolute, just a poor substitute, and should
be eliminated from our concepts of physics. A reversal in “time”
would mean an interference with other processes, which would not create a true
reversal. So no time machines, sorry guys.

“Time” must be eliminated from future formulas of physics and
the universe, and be substituted with increase/decrease of mass and energy.

Again, we do not have the mathematics to describe this, but it will
soon be created.

Time is humanities monster in the closet. On a religious stand point God created us in his own image. God is beyond time so to think that he would limit a being he created in his image with something he never created is foolish. Just like a small child with an overactive imagination creates something that isn’t really there but is quite real in his or her own mind, so have we done with time. Just like that monster however, it is not really there. Our own belief in it makes it real to us. Therefore we are bound to it. In the meantime, God is saying look dumb dumbs, there is nothing there. Time is another one of Satan’s illusions to disprove a being that is internal. Also, there is no death as we perceive it. There is only a rebirth into another level of existence. For my true self is internal and will never end.
As far as the science of things. Science itself has proven itself wrong on a constant consistent continual basis. The only thing science has are theory’s and hypothesis which by their very own definitions are things that can not be 100% proven. A theory, no matter how sound, can never prove nor disprove anything. You cannot prove anything with something that in of itself has not been proven. Science has a fundamental need to hold onto the notion of time for one single purpose. Because without time literally anything and everything becomes possible. Which is something science by definition cannot except.
We literally create our own barriers that hold us back from becoming what God created us to be. All because we are too shallow and closed minded to get past our own ignorance and arrogance. We choose our own made up little fantasy land that we call reality over true actuality.
You can believe what you want. I choose to believe that I am eternal and that my soul will be reborn into a higher level of existence, therefore time does not exist and I am not bound to it.

I realize this is extremely late, but hopefully u see it. This is very well written. Without time, which is and illusion, in order to find the truth of things, we have to put our faith somewhere. As humans, we simply can’t prove how we got here or the other fundamental questions in life without time. Even with time, it is all just theories on top of theories. That is why I put my faith in God, just like others choose to put faith in scientific theories, or anything else they choose to believe. Until I am proved wrong by the universe explaining all questions, I will have faith that we cannot know the answers. What I am trying to say is that because we dont know the answers, and never will, you have to put your faith somewhere. I put my faith in God. People are too reluctant to have faith these days, and make up answers to have the satisfaction of thinking they know everything about the universe. Until this is actually the case, faith is the only option. Time just proves how mixed up we have everything, and it is most certainly the most complex illusion that we humans have had to face.

Also the title of this article is contradictory. In that it states quantum theory proves time doesn’t exist. A theory is a concept that has not yet been proven, so how can you state that an unproven concept proves anything? Quantum Laws, if any actually exist, being something that has been proven as fact could be said to prove a concept to be untrue, yes. But a theory as something that has not been proven cannot be used as proof that any concept is untrue. Quantum theory can be used to theorize a concept as untrue or non existent, but not prove anything.

I am referring to “Quantum Theory” in this as the study of the energy. When you isolate the word theory you have a point, but in this case I use it because people understand that it’s a reference to a field of study. And…. It helps with SEO…

Something else to consider. Isn’t time essentially a way to measure movement through “space”? Meaning that for movement to take place then time must exist? If time didn’t exist then there would be no motion, no expansion or collapse of the universe, no evolution, no rotation of the earth, no orbit around the sun, no seasons, no movement of the solar system through our galaxy or galaxy through the universe, no separation between the here and now and yesterday or tomorrow. We can’t exist in tomorrow or yesterday today right? Don’t these concepts prove time does actually exist?

What we call movement is merely relative. In fundamental reality there is no movement. Movement, time, space etc are the product of a relative experience. Our nervous system is only capable of a very narrow perception of the universe. The universe is far more than our sensory perception allows us experience. It’s more accurate to refer to all of this as cycles of energy. My understanding of all of this is that the universe is pulsation of the ether. A creation of experiences from a point of zero experience. We create it all.

Your statement is hinged on the idea that nothing exists without our existence. How things are perceived is certainly an experiential thing, but to say that “change” does not occur simply because we don’t exist, to perceive it, is stretching things and is a bit biased.

So I’m no quantum physicist, so please bare with me. I get the whole two particle being immediately stimulated as sort of if I pull one end of a string the opposite end moves simultaneously. However when considering time I think what is being ignored is the concept of delayed reactions. If wood gets wet how much time must pass before it rots. Obviously it is not simultaneous like pulling a string. Just because some things can be effected through immediate chain reaction, particle A being stimulated immediately effects everything between it and Particle B, doesn’t prove time doesn’t exist. Rust is another example of time, when certain metals get wet, there isn’t an immediate reaction of rust. That and rot both happen over time. Many circumstances and situations are connected even if we don’t recognize it, like two particle on the opposite ends of the earth. Could you explain how time doesn’t exist in relativity to decay (rot, rust, etc)?

Growth and decay are merely cycles of energy. Everything happens now. Energy pulsating in and out of a point of perception. Our focus is narrow and we only see a point of the apparent decay or growth. What we experience as physical growth or decay is a compilation of experiences and not the truth of the matter.

Difference exists as lesser and greater. Entropy is a means to measure difference—the temporal equivalent of a yardstick. Processes are temporal for living organisms. Growth as a rate of development differs from aging as a rate of entropy.

Time is a format. Transformation for living organisms is geometric and temporal, and change is a
by-product of transformation.

In human gestation (physical reality), the greater the number of cells the more rapidly growth occurs. Initially an embryo is the size of a pinhead—about 1/10th of a millimeter. The measure for a normal full-term neonate brain is some 100 billion neurons—demonstrating an astounding difference between a zygote and a functioning brain capable of consciousness—and a clear difference between embryo
Existence and Being capable of consciousness as the Subject of a Self. A 20 week old fetus weighs about 9 ounces, but at 40 weeks a fully developed neonate will weigh in at some 6 pounds or more.

This is a pseudo-scientific drivel. Indeed time does not exist, but that is because time is how we perceive entropy. Everything is only “now”, the “future” can never exist until it happens unless the universe is deterministic, in which case the future is fixed and always exists and the present is merely an illusion, such would be the case if we are a holographic projection on an event horizon, for example.

Science is not a religion. Belief in science against evidence is. Just like it is clear the speed of light is not constant, but scientists insist it is. Faith that it is constant is clearly wrong. Science provides a description of the world around us when done properly. Chemistry is not screwed up like physics, nor is biology, because they do not have faith in a false premise as their fundamental principal. My equation E=M(C * distance)^2 is an update of special relativity (E=MC^2). My update indicates that the speed of light varies, and is correct where Einstein was wrong. There are a lot of reasons why Einstein was wrong, but he was. This fix gets rid of dark matter, dark energy and dark flow, explains what happens in black holes and removes all strange and apparently random behavior from quantum mechanics while supplanting GR (general relativity) completely.

Justin, thanks for your comments, they are valuable for the discussion, but it seems your mind is stuck in a idea.

Science represents a reasonable means to measure that which seems to to be apparent, that which we call the physical universe. Science is fine but it is limited.

A line from A to B is arbitrary, it doesn’t exist in any reality. If you were to try to measure a line you may only approximate it’s length. The further you zoom in to find the edges and refine your measurement, the further it moves away. The more fuzzy it gets. Until you arrive at the subatomic level where nothing exists. This is fundamental.

A scientific term for you to consider; Renormalisation.

This is the scientist’s way of saying “Oh, well we can’t really measure the exact quantity of this thing, but this approximation will do”.

Perspective determines accuracy.

The physical universe and the language we all seem to have agreed to use as a benchmark to explain it (science), is just a set of ideas that we have come up with. The human nervous system can not be the limit to human development, for if it were no advancement in “science” would be possible. Everything that becomes apparent in this world was first an idea. Invisible, existent in thought only. The individual mind that was responsible had to interpret that idea and formulate language to explain it to others, and to create it.

Don’t get lost in the equations, the language, because they are the menu and not the meal. The “meal” in this case exists in the metaphysical so-to-speak, the invisible before it becomes visible. The Ether, The Quantum Soup, Spirit, The Zero Point Zone, God, Stillness, The Quiet, Mind, whatever you want to call it. It is everything and it is nothing all at once. It is the entire universe contained in infinite density.

It is you in observation of yourself. That is The Truth, and when you realise it then everything makes sense.

SO, you say time does not exist, and every thing exist is present moment ,then how the present moment exist with out time ? . I would rather say time is the snapshots of moments. You see , it took me less than 2minutes to read this article and in most of the line its written ‘Quantum theory proves it’, But where is the proof. If time does not exist then how its passing?, how moments are changing?. Einstein said the Space and time co- exist as space-time. And about Entanglement which is given in the very first para, i think its one of the most weird thing i have ever heard in science. Further if time doesn’t exist then how do we move ? furthur our velocity would be infinite as V=d/t as t=o then V=0 and that surely breaks the 3-d laws of physics.

Circumstances change, environment changes, it gets dark then light, the leaves fall from the trees then they grow new ones, etc etc… but this does not mean that there is a linear passage of “Time” or anything else. Life is not linear, it is everywhere all at once. All happens now, in this eternal moment. There is no time fundamentally, there only seems to be from the human nervous system’s point of view, which is extremely narrowly focused. Science is a language used by some to explain what they observe, but what they observe is the apparent physical universe which they evoke out of the ether, the quantum soup, vibrational everything, nothing. All physical things we observe is consciousness objectified. Understand?

Time is a byproduct of a continued series of experiences. It’s just an idea. It’s more helpful to understanding to refer to what we call time, as cycles of energy. Time, space, movement etc are products of our continued relative experiences. Our physical sensory equipment allows us interpret the energy at a very narrow point. Broaden your point of focus, broaden your understanding. We begin to understand when we enter the silence. Equations are unnecessary then. Science is merely a language that allows us explain what we perceive. What’s really going on is co fluctuation and interpretation of energy

Hi all
I am Andy
Human we observe the universe with our brain that still is ( a semi primitive organ ) in evolution
Our poor behaviour show us how much we need to evolve to be able to explain the question we present our self about life ; our universe etc.
Until then just we keep asking the wrong question hence getting no good answers.
If humans we don’t auto destroy completely with wars I hope we could ( should ) give us a chance to understand the need to increase the capacity of our brain with the right education
We can only build computers or quantum computers ( including glitches ) with the limited knowledge we have at the moment
In 4028 humans then will look to us in retrospective in the same way we thinking today about the days of Roman empires
But one thing I am sure they will blame on us for not keeping our home the planet Earth in good shape

First and foremost, I’m 17 year old and I have no idea about Quantum Physics, so please answer in a way I can understand 🙂
Saying “Time does not exist” is quite the statement. Of course my first thought was “But how can time not exist when it is passing right now?”, then I read this article and apparently I have no idea what time actually is. As far as I understood this article, you think that time is not a predetermined line of moments but rather one eternal moment in which anything could happen anytime?

That’s really cool, I feel honestly privileged that I could prompt your interest. So here’s my response to your inquiry…

There is only one fundamental reality of which the physical existence is an attribute. You could say that physical existence, or that which we (humans) experience via our sensory equipment is limited to the range of detection of these 5 physical senses. Everything outside these 5 physical senses can not be detected without some sort of apparatus, and even then we can only read the effects, of something which lies outside our range of detection. There are other effects that we can not sense even with these apparatus.

You could say that there is the physical and the metaphysical reality. We are exposed to the physical reality and we know this by virtue of these 5 senses and our system of analysis; The Conscious (awake) everyday mind. We are less exposed to the metaphysical reality, however we can access this reality via methods such as meditation and being tuned to our emotional intelligence which if I may say is far more intuitive and “on the money” that the analytical intelligence!

The Universe is vibrational and there is an infinite range of vibrations in constant and perpetual motion in it. Check out “The Resonance Project” and “Nassim Haramein” for very accurate and trustworthy scientific explanation on the actual function of the Universe.

In this physical reality we have devised systems that seem to explain it quite well. Systems such as the metric system. Measurement has become a good way for us to map our environment, but it has holes, BIG HOLES! These holes become apparent when we zoom so far into the thing that we are examining that it becomes very fuzzy, dimensions move away and cannot be defined and they finally disappear. Time is no different.

The study of Quantum Physics has revealed that the smallest thing in the universe that we have been able to study (the electron) has no position and and not velocity and no size, in other words as we zoom closer in to try to define the stuff that makes up our world it disappears into thin air! Time and space as a function of the study of our Universe have no grounds, they become useless.

Now, I know this might be hard to grasp, and I may not be doing a great job at explaining it so lets look at the physical world because there are clues there also…

All there is is NOW. That’s all we can ever experience. Tomorrow never comes. As soon as midnight hits, it’s gone and what was today is still today only it’s dark outside. We create this thing called the clock to try put some structure on our existence but somewhere along the line we realised it was inaccurate. It’s based on the movement of the Sun and moon and other astral bodies in relationship to earth and early on we realised that we would need to move around the clock and calendar to fit with how the solar system interacts with earth. In other words Time is a convenience, it is not reall. It is an idea thought up by a group of guys in a room somewhere to allow us function with other people and make arrangements to meet. It is like a meter stick, it is no more real or representative of reality than a meter stick, or a menu that displays the meal on offer in a restaurant

The native tribes of the earth never had a clock, they recorded and mapped their existence by means of cycles of change rather that linear analysis. Linear analysis is like being stuck in a flat 2 dimensional object in what is a 3 dimensional world. When we grow we grow out in all directions, not in a straight line from birth to death.

In much the same way as the measurement of a coastline of a country can vary depending on the size of the ruler you use, time is completely relative and arbitrary.

Time is an idea. It’s not real and does not even represent anything tangible. The only way for anyone new to this concept to stay centered is to remember there is no experience that you can ever have that is not now, not even the so called past, that is only a memory stamp, it is not real either. The future is only an idea also, it does not exist and you can never go there, there is only now.

The future Universe lies in “Superposition”, it lies in potential only. You get to create it the way you want, so be careful how you think for your thoughts are vibrational energy packets and the create your so called “future”

Put “Time” into the search above, you’ll find other articles I’ve written on the subject.

I fixed relativity: E=M(c * distance)^2 <- time flows differently in different places depending on distance from mass. In a spiral galaxy, time is faster on outside and stars move to fast (galaxy rotation problem), and problem with mercury is that is spends most of time away from sun due to elliptical orbit, than close, so it moves further through the area of faster time, than slower time, and therefor moves faster than newton predicted.

in other words, if you move as rate of 2MPH, and time is 2x faster than earth, you move 4 miles in one hour.

If you believe that, you are saying there is no world beyond the one we can measure. No awareness of something is no existence of that thing?

So let’s say there are somewhere fairies living on asteroids, but they can only be seen through a blue coloured glass, so until someone would look at them through a blue coloured glass, they wouldn’t be real. But once spotted, they would become real? They always were, we just didn’t see them. We defined physics, it’s a game we invented the rules of. So if physics is law, it is determined by our senses and the tools we will invent to measure the unseen. It is determined by the observer.

(I’m not going to go into your 4miles example, but I just want to point out that if your vehicle moves in a straight line from a to z on a flat platform, it holds up. But if it moves in an angle other than in a straight line, it will only have travelled for 4 miles from the vehicle’s point of view. From an outside point of view, it will have travelled for one hour at a speed of 4MPH but it won’t have gotten that far away from its starting point. So did the vehicle really drive for 4 miles? No. But it did drive an hour at a speed of 4MPH. )

Time is how your mind perceives the changes of entropy. entropy is why things get old and fall apart. even if you put a perfectly round piece of diamond in space, it would eventually fall apart into no diamond at all. We call that falling apart the passage of time and the reason it falls apart entropy. So time is not a physical quanta, but instead a subjective experience.

Consider the galaxy rotation problem. If you use GR or Newton, the velocity of stars is too fast on the outside where entropy is faster, and too slow on the inside where it is slower. Where entropy is slower light is slower. Entropy is time. Time is faster on outside, so things move faster than expected. It is slower on inside so things are slower than expected.

I just watched a 2 hour movie documentary on sacred geometry. I completely get what they say.

It’s been 15 years since I had math and physics in class and what you are writing I don’t understand. What is GR? And this entropy, never heard of it until I read it here and it looks like it’s your God. Entropy is answer to time and light. If I understand it correctly, entropy is something like the decay of things.

In your theory, if two stars had disappeared 1 million light years ago and both were on 1 million light years distance from us, but in very different directions, o——–X——-o . If this would be, we would not watch them disappear at the same time in your theory? Since both lightwaves will pass through different entropy zones, it would be quite a big coincidence that they would arrive at the same time. Or am I forgetting something?

btw; Are you correcting Einstein in his own field? Einstein was a genius, a brilliant man, but he was humble to Tesla by his own words. Tesla knew way more about the universe than Einstein did and Einstein knew and admitted this. Respect.

I’m sure sacred geometry is interesting. I replied in another comment that doesn’t seem to have been published that we are in a simulation, and I gave proof of God in the Bible [rev 12:3 has dragon in heaven with 7 heads, 10 horns and 7 crowns. 7*10*7 (each head has 10 horns and 7 crowns) yields 490. 490 light years away is Kappa Draconis, a star in Draco (THE DRAGON).] So the bible gives light year distance to a constellation, which is impossible since they didn’t even have microscopes let alone telescopes, and of course the meter was not defined at the time.

Entropy is the process of energy spreading out. Since we can agree that at least in theory E=MC^2 [but not quite. it kind of works, because the atom bomb works, but in reality it is E=M(C * distance)^2, and E=MC^2 assumes the minimum distance of 1, ie E=M(C*1)^2, which is why it appears to work but does not really] thus energy and matter are equivalent.

Okay, since everything is really energy (mass/energy equivalence which for scientific reasons is due to the interaction of quantum foam and energy to create mass), then everything is subject to entropy, because entropy is the process of energy spreading out.

Now normally, people would say “the process of energy spreading out over time” but that isn’t accurate. When you observe the process of it spreading out, the rate at which it spreads is INTERPRETED by your brain as time. It is how it understands the energy spreading.

Consider a flashlight. When you turn it on, it does not INSTANTLY light the wall you point it at. Instead the light leaves the bulb and travels to the wall very quickly. Light is just energy, so light spreading out from the bulb is subject to entropy, and entropy is the process that moves the light. Thus it can be said that the speed of entropy can be measured by measuring the speed of light.

If you move to a region where the flow of entropy is different (because you are near more mass), then if you measure the speed of light it will be different. A clock will move faster on the wall and you will age faster. Just as in special relativity, as you approach the speed of light, time will slow.

Because there is no time, just entropy, the universe exists at exactly a single state (a single reference frame) at all times and there exists no past, and no future, only the now. You can not reverse entropy, so you can’t go back in time (you would have to literally put every atom back in place with your time machine) and you can’t artificially speed it up.

There is no spacetime, no quantum mechanics, no geodesics or wormholes or warp drives from bending space. Spacefoam is responsible for the speed of entropy, thus the speed of time.

Now God, well God is a real thing. We are subject to a plan, and the plan leaves no room for choice, but only for understanding. You have to understand the choices that you made in the past life in this one. As the Oracle in the Matrix says “you have already made the choice, now you just have to understand it”.

I think you should open up your mind to the possiblity of us being genetically engineered and given the Holy books and the concept of one God because of sociological reasons other than the truth.

A flashlight needs reaction time and warming time. That’s why it doesn’t seem to light the wall immediately.

I know not much about the speed of light and how it was defined. But if it’s in the bible and if we were already familiar with distance and time, the speed of light couldve been dictated to us.

I know science is bull and just a tool to mimic and understand nature. I don’t need science to know there’s light.

But you missed the point of my 2 stars. They will surely travel past planets and stars so they will pass through different entropies as you call it. There’s not one place in the universe that is out of reach of any gravitational force.

You know nothing of science. you don’t know how light works (warmup period?). And you don’t know how light propages, and you don’t know what it is made of. You know nothing and your metaphysical bullshit is just that.

While i agree that there is a plan, point a to point b, I think you have to have the will to make it to point b. Thats where free will comes in. You can stay at point a or you can choose to move to b. Ie the choice to “be” has already been made, however the ability to get to whatever point b is, is in our hands.

but only for understanding. You have to understand the choices that you
made in the past life in this one. As the Oracle in the Matrix says
“you have already made the choice, now you just have to understand it”.

yes. I’m saying that 1000+ years ago you were alive, and now you are dead and getting a chance to decide if the choices you made were right or wrong. A second chance without a second chance. A simulation based on past performance.

You know this is wierd. I don’t even know who you are. I have a vague memory of replying to a comment of yours about Einstein being wrong. I don’t want to make a big deal out of this.
Have a good year.

If two stars are 1 million years in opposite directions light will arrive at the same time. However, lets say the two stars are moving in a circle. If either star is in a region with faster entropy, it will appear to move faster than the star will lower entropy.

When light leaves the star, it moves into mostly empty space between stars, where light is very very fast. it accelerates until it gets 1/2 way to you (because you are the only thing with mass between the stars) then it decelerates half way (because the density is lowest halfway between the objects) so redshift is preserved, thus we can calculate distance properly.

Such conditions can’t exist, so it is a thought experiment, but a valid one and a good question.

You are a genius, Gump! We use the concepts Einstein gave the world a million times a day and you say he was wrong. When you publish a peer reviewed paper, then we all might listen. Oh yes, the reviewers don’t know s****.

Sometimes the ones who call “fool!” Are better at being fools than the one they call a fool. Although I’ve refined my thinking since 2013 when this was written and should rewrite some portions, the thrust is the same. Time is an idea only, it has no fundamental reality of its own.
No one can know this for you you either get it or you don’t.
And by the way, if you can show me where I used the word “wrong” in the article that would be great.
Also, why don’t you demonstrate your knowledge on the subject and offer us a reasonable argument.

Yes, it is a wrong assumption. the speed of light is constant under constant gravity. thus it is 299792km/s under 9.8m/s^2 acceleration of gravity. Where there is more gravity (because there is more energy) like the sun, time runs more slowly, and light moves more slowly. time is relative to energy volume

I like the way you write, and the way you dealt with this subject. I would say, however, that I think it more accurate to say that science ALONE cannot provide us with explanations of existence or being for lack of better words. In fact, even in a philosophical sense it may not make much sense to speak of “being” but rather “becoming”. Needless to say, I am far from the first to say that. Science can do quite a good job of describing some of the limits within which we exist, but that’s it. In fact, even beyond science we have got to learn to accept contradiction, ambiguity and uncertainty as “facts of life”. Consistency truly is the hobgoblin of small minds sometimes. As someone who long ago came to the conclusion that deduction and induction alone cannot explain consciousness and knowledge, I like what you did there. 🙂

Hey thanks for your input and kind words. It’s Stephen right? I think you are right about “science alone”. Science needs to build a bridge between it’s ideas and systems, and the invisible spiritual realm. There has been a reluctance to do so for fear of reprisal and loosing credibility amongst peers. But at the same time you’ve got ground breakers like Neils Bohr who said;
[“What is it that we humans depend on? We depend on our words… Our task is to communicate experience and ideas to others. We must strive continually to extend the scope of our description, but in such a way that our messages do not thereby lose their objective or unambiguous character … We are suspended in language in such a way that we cannot say what is up and what is down. The word “reality” is also a word, a word which we must learn to use correctly.”]
I think he understood the need to bridge the gap. He knew that all there is, is consciousness and it is the determining factor.

Hi. I enjoy this topic and would like to share my thoughts. I am of the opinion that time does not exist and that it is nothing more than a flawed human construct based on perception without any basis in reality. What we percieve is not always true. For instance, a spoon appears to bend when we place it in a glass of water. We may percieve that it bends due to an optical illusion playing with our perception, but in reality it has not bent at all.
Time is much the same. We have memories and therefore believe that there is a past and due to habit (Hume) we make predictions about the future that may or may not happen (in other words, problematic). For instance, are we actually sure that the sun will rise tomorrow? For that matter; does it actually rise or does it appear to rise depending on our realtive place on the globe. The truth is, the sun is always rising somewhere on the globe and always setting (sense and nominatum; “sense” in the fact that we perceive it to rise and fall, “nominatum” in the fact that the earth is actually rotating therefore creating the illusion of sense perception). So, just because we have memory and can make predictions of what the future may be, it does not neccesarily follow that these series of past perception and future prediction is actual time.
On a scientific and mathematical level, say we were to take measurements of time, time A and time B. Maybe they are measured in hours or seconds, it doesn’t matter which because these moments in time can be eternally divided which means we can never find any actual moment in time, hence there can’t be any real moment in time except for the eternal now. Welcome to eternity folks, you’re already in it.

It’s all about perspective, you’re spot on. Your comments regarding the sun remind me of that recent space movie with Sandra Bullock, what was it again?…..
George Clooney is also in it. Rent or download it if you’ve not seen it.

I thought last night that; we live in this eternal moment that moves through infinite experiences, like a we are in a spaceship moving through space. As we move we encounter new experiences that all ready exist in the potential. The potential is like a cloud that materialises when we encounter it, and what determines the experience is consciousness. It’s like consciousness is the hands on the steering wheel of the ship.. Know what I mean?

What we experience collectively as our world, is simply the potential already formed and agreed upon by all of us.

Abraham says we actually have billions of different worlds, one each, and all of them intersecting. Kind of like a massive Ven diagram!

Hi Larry,
Your comment about the earth being a type of spaceship reminds me of Gene Rodenberry’s concept behind the Enterprise being a representation of the starship earth. This was why he included a diverse crew of a Russian, African American, Scotsman, Asian, Russian so on and such forth.
I like how you focus on potentiality, which is something I see as a great strength within human existence. I also see it as a great waste, as most of our societies have wasted and continue to waste much of the human potential out there. For instance, what would human society be like if we hadn’t wasted the potential of females for centuries due to archaic beliefs in what women were/are capable of. Or due to the unbalanced distribution of wealth between and within the nations of the world, how many young minds never reach their full potential due to poverty, hunger and lack of education.
However, there are two things I would contend. Experience can’t be consciousness. There must be consciousness first in order to experience. Cogito ergo Sum kindda thing. If I am not conscious I can’t experience.
I also tend to take the side that possible world semantics are just that, symantic. If there is no time, and as such, no future or past, then it stands to reason that when we speak of possible worlds, all we are doing is making a projection out of habit (Hume) or looking back we postulate what could have been if other choices had been made. To me, the idea that possible worlds actually exist, based of the plethora of decisions made at every moment by every human, is a little human centric and is much like how religion tends to humanize God. Instead of religion we claim that possible worlds take form as they are centered on human choices, which is what you claim through the ven diagram discussion. I doubt that possible worlds existing actually hinge on our decision making, only this world is shaped by our choices.
And no, I don’t agree with DeCartes that this is the best of all possible worlds. To me, this is the only world that exists and is based of the chain of causality that could have been different, but isn’t. However, the potential does exist for this to be the best of possible worlds if and only if human choice allows. Obviously, I am not a determinist. Physics has proven that the universe is not 100% determined which allows for free will to exist.
Great discussion here. Thank you for this forum. Unfortunately, too many people don’t think on these things and live lives of reactionary responses instead decisions made out of logic and reason. What would human experience be like if more of us thought instead of react.

I can agree with all you say I reckon. Nice one re Gene Rodenberry, I think I heard that before somewhere, it’s familiar.

I agree with you on consciousness/experience, yes. I think we’re on the same page just a little clarity needed on a couple of points from my end.

I think of myself and of others like spheres moving through the infinite cloud we call the universe, consciousness in a state of potential you might say. This is like the Venn diagram analogy only in 3D. Where our lives paths cross is like our spheres overlapping with one another. Where our experience is shared that’s where we overlap.

Ahh, I thought you were using the ven diagram as it concerns possible world debates. Thanks for the clarity. Makes better sense.
Though, if you think about the collective conscious of mankind, then we are all overlapped and one with our past, present and future already, whether we see it or not. So then, perception and potential are the two major forces that shape human experience.

Can agree in the whole but in parts I can’t agree!
Because:
a) time is a property of every movement in our whole science and can be measured.
b) in Quantum Physics time is perhaps not so important as in dimension of macro-cosmos and is nearly not measurable – like space. More important are force, mass or energy. In frequency it’s included and easier measurable.
c) the entanglement of photons (= fix connecions) are not dependent on time – but only these. As I understand it: two photons have to be entangled (the fix relation has to be “moved” in that pair). Without that they have no connection!

Can agree in the whole but in parts I can’t agree!
Because:
a) time is a property of every movement in our whole science and can be measured.
b) in Quantum Physics time is perhaps not so important as in dimension of macro-cosmos and is nearly not measurable – like space. More important are force, mass or energy. In frequency it’s included and easier measurable.
c) the entanglement of photons (= fix connecions) are not dependent on time – but only these. As I understand it: two photons have to be entangled (the fix relation has to be “moved” in that pair). Without that they have no connection!

How do you feel about the fact that nothing in the universe can ever truly be measured? Would you not agree that everything ever measured, be it time or otherwise, is merely an approximation?

The closer we zoom in the further the point moves away. All reference points are arbitrary. They are merely ideas and not real. As we zoom in on that which we wish to define, the less definitive it becomes. Time is no different. It’s a useful concept, however it is not real. Measurement is useful to us at our level of physical existence but is should not be relied upon for truth.

You see life, the universe is ever present everywhere, just like Van Morrison said

Dear Larry G. Maquire, thanks for your thoughts!
You know an Old Greek philopher said : I know, I know nothing! I allways agree with him.
In my spontaneous reaction I “feel” you are right, but I “know” we need agreements in scientific communication. In physics (dealing about physical objects) we have knowledge which is proven over centuries and we have a sort of “cognitive evolution of all thinking humans in the world”.
In human sciences we know other facts and have other rules. A stone is an object and has no feeling but has physical properties which may relate (f.i. Einsteins spacetime or relation between spacetime and mass).
In human sciences we have created other aspects of living subjects as we are. A new term is important: life (and opposite death). A stone can live longer than a human being.
In my special way of thinking the human beeing is the most important subject, because only he lives and has a knowledge about himself.
To come to an end: we have to divide between living world (with included end of live) and material world (with not defined or possible end). The very actual word “posthuman” is not that I personal like to think about.
If you have time look at http://www.plbg.at. Thanks!
I would like to hear from you!

Hi Franz, I really love these exchanges, thanks again for taking time to comment. Believe it or not, I look forward with anticipation to returning to “source”. I want to know what it’s like there, or maybe “remember” is the word I should use.

However, I’ve some work to do before I expire!! It’s inevitable that we will leave here, (whatever “we” are, that is; beyond our physical bodies) and I think there is no advantage like the one we experience when we contemplate and embrace our own mortality.

Thanks again for you comments, I certainly will take a look at your site.

you are all beautiful human beings and i cannot tell you how amazing it is to listen to such progressive thinking. myself i unfortunatly have a limited understanding of both math and physics ect i now think before i should be patient before i add my thoughts

Consider a physical system whose state changes and let us call it a Dynamical System.

Let a closed Dynamical System, S, whose state be described by ψ– A mathematical entity we use to describe S (or the state of S). ψ can take on the following specific states: ψ1,.. ψ2,.. ψi,..ψj,..ψk,… where i, j, k,.. are positive integers. Then one can define Time increment (Time or duration), δt, as follows:

Suppose S initially takes up the state ψi, and then it changes to ψj (written as ψi → ψj), then a certain time increment, δt, is said to have elapsed; where δt = 0 if i = j, and δt ≠ 0 if i ≠ j.

A Time increment defined in this way is therefore a Derived Physical Quantity, and

1) If S does not exist, then Time, δt, does not exist.

2) Time is quantized if the states ψi, ψj,… etc are discrete.

3) If ψ changes in the sequence “ψi → ψj → ψk”, then the 2 “δt’s” (associated with the 2 “→”) are perceived as being equal in magnitude since, in reality, only ψi, ψj and ψk, but not something in-between, that are observable. It is therefore meaningless to say that the “in-betweens” can be of different magnitudes. But we are quite sure that the “in-betweens”, the “δt’s”, do exist because their end-points exist.

4) If ψ changes in sequence given by “ψi → ψk → ψj”, where i, j and k all have different values, then the 2 “δt’s” are taken as having the same sign (direction). This follows naturally from the way “δt” is defined above since the 2 “δt’s” are defined in exactly the same manner, if one has a positive (or negative) sign, so does the other.

Following the above, if ψ changes in sequence given by “ψi → ψk → ψj → ψi”, we should perceive S having returned to its previous state of ψi, instead of perceiving as Time having gone backwards. Time, therefore, is unidirectional.

Recall the Definition: A Dynamical System is a Physical System whose state changes. Nevertheless, we still want to ask the question: Why does it change? Why is it not non-changing and stay the same always?

The fact that it changes allows us to postulate the existence for some physical agent Α, which when acts on S at ψi, makes possible of the appearance of S at ψj, and accompanying such a change, there is an elapse of time δt– By definition.

Hence, Α : Sψi → Sψj where i ≠ j————— [S1]

Now, S denotes the Dynamical System, ψ is a mathematical entity we use to describe S (or the state of S), i, j, k,… etc are labels we attach to ψ in order to distinguish the different states of S.

From statement [S1], it is reasonable to assume the existence of a corresponding mathematical operator Â, of A, such that

Âψi = ψj——————————— [E1]

This is merely rewriting statement [S1] in equation form by introducing the operator Â.

After acting on S at ψi, A persists– There is no reason why it should vanish suddenly, especially in a closed system– and continues to act on S at ψj. Hence we have

Α : Sψj → Sψk where j ≠ k————— [S2]

Α : Sψk →Sψl where k ≠ l————— [S3]

Α : Sψl →Sψm where l ≠ m————- [S4]

and so on.

From these we can get

Âψj = ψk——————————— [E2]

Âψk = ψl——————————— [E3]

Âψl = ψm ——————————- [E4]

and so on.

Given the set of equations [E1], [E2], [E3],…, can we say anything about Âψ?

Is it correct to say that Âψ = aψ, where “a” is a function independent of ψ?

Let ℤ be the set {ψ1, ψ2,… ψi,…ψj,…ψk,….}

ℤ = (All possible ψ’s}

So, Â maps each ψ in ℤ into another ψ in ℤ and, by inspection, it looks plausible that the Âψ = aψ is a solution to the set of equations [E1], [E2], …

The author cannot give a rigorous mathematical proof that this is so but maybe a more concrete example could show that this is highly plausible:

Now, T is the teacher who is directing the boys to play a game of passing on a relay-stick. When one particular boy gets the stick, the teacher decides to whom it should be handed to according to a set of rules the teacher has in his head.

We do not yet know what that set of rules is but we can note down how the relay-stick is passed along among the boys. For example, at some stage Martin is holding the stick and the teacher instructs him to pass it to Phillip. So,

Tm = p————— (1)

And then the teacher instructs Phillip to pass it to Robert and so on…

Tp = r————— (2)

Tr = s————— (3)

Ts = a ————— (4)

and so on.

From the above, what can we say about “Tb”? We know that it has to be a “b” (boy) but there are constraints. The only way to make an consistent equation is to have

Tb = (attachment)b

In this particular example, the attachment might be a description of the set of rules the teacher uses to decide how the boys should pass the stick along. If the rules are known, all the equations (1), (2), (3), (4),… can be worked out without actually following the passing of the relay-stick. Therefore, the equation Tb = (attachment)b is equivalent to the whole set of equations (1), (2), (3), (4),…

Now go back to Âψ. By analogy, it seems reasonable to assume that the operator equation, Âψ = aψ, where the attachment is “a”, is the solution to (the equivalent of) the set of equations {E1], [E2], [E3],… What’s more, from what we already know about operator equations, the relationship between the attachment “a” and ψ should be one of multiplication.

Assuming that the above arguments are valid it appears that, just from the definition of a Dynamical System being a physical system that changes, one can show that the agent responsible for that change, the physical agent A, should have a corresponding operator Â (or such an operator can be constructed) that is related to ψ, the mathematical entity used to describe the physical system, in the form of an operator equation, Âψ = aψ, where “a” should reflect the nature of Â, and therefore of A. In other words, it is the change in the physical system that gives rise to the equation Âψ = aψ.

Knowing that total energy normally determines how a physical system evolves, it seems reasonable to identify A with the Hamiltonian and Â with the Hamiltonian operator.

Consider a physical system whose state changes and let us call it a Dynamical System.

Let a closed Dynamical System, S, whose state be described by ψ– A mathematical entity we use to describe S (or the state of S). ψ can take on the following specific states: ψ1,.. ψ2,.. ψi,..ψj,..ψk,… where i, j, k,.. are positive integers. Then one can define Time increment (Time or duration), δt, as follows:

Suppose S initially takes up the state ψi, and then it changes to ψj (written as ψi → ψj), then a certain time increment, δt, is said to have elapsed; where δt = 0 if i = j, and δt ≠ 0 if i ≠ j.

A Time increment defined in this way is therefore a Derived Physical Quantity, and

1) If S does not exist, then Time, δt, does not exist.

2) Time is quantized if the states ψi, ψj,… etc are discrete.

3) If ψ changes in the sequence “ψi → ψj → ψk”, then the 2 “δt’s” (associated with the 2 “→”) are perceived as being equal in magnitude since, in reality, only ψi, ψj and ψk, but not something in-between, that are observable. It is therefore meaningless to say that the “in-betweens” can be of different magnitudes. But we are quite sure that the “in-betweens”, the “δt’s”, do exist because their end-points exist.

4) If ψ changes in sequence given by “ψi → ψk → ψj”, where i, j and k all have different values, then the 2 “δt’s” are taken as having the same sign (direction). This follows naturally from the way “δt” is defined above since the 2 “δt’s” are defined in exactly the same manner, if one has a positive (or negative) sign, so does the other.

Following the above, if ψ changes in sequence given by “ψi → ψk → ψj → ψi”, we should perceive S having returned to its previous state of ψi, instead of perceiving as Time having gone backwards. Time, therefore, is unidirectional.

Recall the Definition: A Dynamical System is a Physical System whose state changes. Nevertheless, we still want to ask the question: Why does it change? Why is it not non-changing and stay the same always?

The fact that it changes allows us to postulate the existence for some physical agent Α, which when acts on S at ψi, makes possible of the appearance of S at ψj, and accompanying such a change, there is an elapse of time δt– By definition.

Hence, Α : Sψi → Sψj where i ≠ j————— [S1]

Now, S denotes the Dynamical System, ψ is a mathematical entity we use to describe S (or the state of S), i, j, k,… etc are labels we attach to ψ in order to distinguish the different states of S.

From statement [S1], it is reasonable to assume the existence of a corresponding mathematical operator Â, of A, such that

Âψi = ψj——————————— [E1]

This is merely rewriting statement [S1] in equation form by introducing the operator Â.

After acting on S at ψi, A persists– There is no reason why it should vanish suddenly, especially in a closed system– and continues to act on S at ψj. Hence we have

Α : Sψj → Sψk where j ≠ k————— [S2]

Α : Sψk →Sψl where k ≠ l————— [S3]

Α : Sψl →Sψm where l ≠ m————- [S4]

and so on.

From these we can get

Âψj = ψk——————————— [E2]

Âψk = ψl——————————— [E3]

Âψl = ψm ——————————- [E4]

and so on.

Given the set of equations [E1], [E2], [E3],…, can we say anything about Âψ?

Is it correct to say that Âψ = aψ, where “a” is a function independent of ψ?

Let ℤ be the set {ψ1, ψ2,… ψi,…ψj,…ψk,….}

ℤ = (All possible ψ’s}

So, Â maps each ψ in ℤ into another ψ in ℤ and, by inspection, it looks plausible that the Âψ = aψ is a solution to the set of equations [E1], [E2], …

The author cannot give a rigorous mathematical proof that this is so but maybe a more concrete example could show that this is highly plausible:

Now, T is the teacher who is directing the boys to play a game of passing on a relay-stick. When one particular boy gets the stick, the teacher decides to whom it should be handed to according to a set of rules the teacher has in his head.

We do not yet know what that set of rules is but we can note down how the relay-stick is passed along among the boys. For example, at some stage Martin is holding the stick and the teacher instructs him to pass it to Phillip. So,

Tm = p————— (1)

And then the teacher instructs Phillip to pass it to Robert and so on…

Tp = r————— (2)

Tr = s————— (3)

Ts = a ————— (4)

and so on.

From the above, what can we say about “Tb”? We know that it has to be a “b” (boy) but there are constraints. The only way to make an consistent equation is to have

Tb = (attachment)b

In this particular example, the attachment might be a description of the set of rules the teacher uses to decide how the boys should pass the stick along. If the rules are known, all the equations (1), (2), (3), (4),… can be worked out without actually following the passing of the relay-stick. Therefore, the equation Tb = (attachment)b is equivalent to the whole set of equations (1), (2), (3), (4),…

Now go back to Âψ. By analogy, it seems reasonable to assume that the operator equation, Âψ = aψ, where the attachment is “a”, is the solution to (the equivalent of) the set of equations {E1], [E2], [E3],… What’s more, from what we already know about operator equations, the relationship between the attachment “a” and ψ should be one of multiplication.

Assuming that the above arguments are valid it appears that, just from the definition of a Dynamical System being a physical system that changes, one can show that the agent responsible for that change, the physical agent A, should have a corresponding operator Â (or such an operator can be constructed) that is related to ψ, the mathematical entity used to describe the physical system, in the form of an operator equation, Âψ = aψ, where “a” should reflect the nature of Â, and therefore of A. In other words, it is the change in the physical system that gives rise to the equation Âψ = aψ.

Knowing that total energy normally determines how a physical system evolves, it seems reasonable to identify A with the Hamiltonian and Â with the Hamiltonian operator.

The scientific method, per se, does not require any boxes – that requirement is just a fixture, a convenience, of small minds. Einstein’s science followed wherever the observations took it, in whatever form and dimension it required. Physicists today even try to put dimensions into boxes (e.g., superstrings), but the closer they look, the more it unravels. In the middle ages, epicycles and flat-earth theory were considered to be good science until their false premises were dismantled. So let us not confuse the false premises with the method itself — good science does not depend on cherished premises and does not conclude based on too few (or insufficiently precise) observations, and here ‘precise’ includes “observed in a large enough perspective or in the context in which a phenomenon actually exists.”

The scientific method, per se, does not require any boxes – that requirement is just a fixture, a convenience, of small minds. Einstein’s science followed wherever the observations took it, in whatever form and dimension it required. Physicists today even try to put dimensions into boxes (e.g., superstrings), but the closer they look, the more it unravels. In the middle ages, epicycles and flat-earth theory were considered to be good science until their false premises were dismantled. So let us not confuse the false premises with the method itself — good science does not depend on cherished premises and does not conclude based on too few (or insufficiently precise) observations, and here ‘precise’ includes “observed in a large enough perspective or in the context in which a phenomenon actually exists.”

Einstein only new about Mercury. It is same problem as galaxy rotation (dark matter), or dark energy or dark flow, but einstein didn’t know about those, or he would have made different conclusion. Speed of light is not constant, increases with distance from mass:
E=M(c * distance)^2
Gravity=1/C

Easily provable:
if light propagates by inverse square law (it does) then, the area it covers doubles continuously. How can it double the area but move at a constant rate, doubling all the way to the edge of the Universe?

Ie, paint a square, then around it a square twice as big in same amount of time PAINTING NO FASTER. then do that again. and again. never painting faster but finishing in same amount of time. You can’t, and neither can light.

Speed of light is inverse of gravity. Appears constant on Earth because we are about same distance from sun all the time. Recent testing on EMDRIVE showed speed of light variance, but they refuse to consider that speed of light could be non-constant.

1/C is the level of “quantum foam compression”, which results in gravity. A light particle (a pair of neutrinos) makes a wave in the foam, it is a particle accompanied by a wave it creates in foam (like doppler effect), not both a particle and wave at same time.

Science is broken. This is a comment from Tyson in #5 of Inexplicable Universe:
“… these exotic theories [of physics] defy every bit of common sense you could possibly bring to bear” – Neil deGrasse Tyson

Justin, your rationale is quite logical, but still insufficient because you are treating light as if it were a physical phenomenon. It is rather, like ‘time’, a cypher, a place-holder for an over-arching dimensionality which can never be observed directly from our ‘flatland’.

Light is physical. It is a photon (a quanta of energy). The photon makes a compression wave in quantum foam, which is wave/particle duality. Time is just the observation of entropy, and entropy flows at a rate of what we measure as the speed of light. Time flows differently everywhere, but the space around which the earth moves has a relativity constant rate of entropy due to our distance from a)the center of the galaxy and b) the sun.

Time at Mercury is overall faster than expected because it travels a greater distance through a distance farther from the sun than closer, due to elliptical orbit. This is why GR gives 5600 arcseconds instead of Newton’s 5557.

I am not a physical scientist. I would like to consider myself a social scientist whose searches bring me to the shores of the physical. I want to share some thoughts, questions and observations:
a) on the subject matter, time was invented/ “exists” relative to and in referrence to light, thus we have the sundial. The abstract that is time was “created” (as stated in this article of Mr. Maguire- as a convenience, or perhaps an “order”) by observing light.
b) Light is both particle and wave, pretty much as in the individual is part of a whole.
c) What if we are just using different labels for the same things we are referring to? For instance, what God is to religion, is Love to Philosophy and is Energy or Force to science? After all Physics started from the pursuit of music?- A human endeavor to find delight and happiness.
d) Isaac Asimov’s The Last Question is a perfect case in point.
e) Science try to explain it alone. Religion is doing the same. Yet Science and Religion have one bottomline. There should be no quarrel nor contradiction. Man is part of a bigger Whole. The bigger Whole is made up of individuals. Individuals came upon because the energy of the whole is so great, it exploded. It cannot contain itself. It gave birth to freedom or free particles or beings.
f) It would be interesting to “fit” in or “assign” social phenomena in scientific formulas to understand human existence. Like by creating Time, it gave us a semblance of order. Whether the creation of Time is good or bad, is another story.

E=M(c squared) is an example of how Einstein chucked in an extra c velocity measurement (to balance the equation) while Poincare held off with a ? (E=Mc(?)
The ? is not another c but in inverted c as a divisor of c (E=Mc/(1/c) or for simplicity E=Mc/tr. To find for M move the c and tr over to the other side (M=E(tr)/c)…sort of spells out metric. Take a look at Lortenz equations and you’ll see inverted c.
So what is measured in seconds per meter? Relative time.
The difference between light (E) and proton (M) is the tr/c and c/tr.
Some used to call it “aether”. I call it size(c) and rate of relative time(tr).
A “tr” : or relative time rate is missing from the tool box of modern science. Science needs a new unit before today’s unanswered physics questions get answered.
The quantum vacuum fluctuation is caused by light waves. Gravity comes from objects. Objects are made of protons. Protons emit long wave lengths of light. Other protons reflect or receive light. Light is a relative-time-fluctuation. Examine Drude model if you like. The proton state (M) is a self sustaining field because of time differences between tr/c and c/tr. Protons reflect parts of the light waves and receive other (sometimes). Two fundamental forces 1. attraction of faster/wider attracted to slower/smaller relative time. And 2. that of reflection (Drude model) vectored forces. Light is not dual wave/particle unless it enters a more concentrated relative time. It’s just wave until then.